evaluate_slo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the async nature ('Uses the async evaluation:start / evaluation:poll flow'), but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or how the polling works. The information is minimal but not contradictory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose and signal the async flow. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the key action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite moderate complexity (async flow, optional timeframes, no output schema), the description does not explain what the compliance result looks like, how to handle the async lifecycle, or any constraints. It's insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand behavior without external spec references.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are already clear. The tool description adds only a general statement about returning compliance, not additional semantic detail for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Evaluate an SLO by ID') and the result ('return its compliance result'), and specifies it's for 'platform SLO v1'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slo (which returns definition) and list_slos.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the async evaluation flow but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_slo or why a custom timeframe might be needed. There is no when-not-to-use or clarification of tradeoffs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.